Madras High Court Monthly Digest - November 2022 [Citations 448 to 487]
Upasana Sajeev
5 Dec 2022 11:30 AM IST
![Madras High Court Monthly Digest - November 2022 [Citations 448 to 487]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/02/01/750x450_408688-madras-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Madras High Court Monthly Digest - November 2022 [Citations 448 to 487]")
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 487 NOMINAL INDEX Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s MAC Public Charitable Trust (batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448 S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449 Senthil Balaji v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450 Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police...
Citations: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448 To 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
NOMINAL INDEX
Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s MAC Public Charitable Trust (batch), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
Senthil Balaji v State, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
K Kala v Secretary, Education Department and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
V Vijay and another v. The State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
R Karthikeyan v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
Life Insurance Corporation of India v. The National Commission for Scheduled Caste and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
Lilly Pushpam v The Additional Chief Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT), 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
Vinoth v Sub Divisional Magistrate and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
K Vinopratha v The Teachers Recruitment Board and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
Kirankumar Moolchand Jain versus TransUnion CIBIL Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
Sunitha v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
S Rajarethinam (Deceased) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
M/s. Polyhose India Private Limited versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
M/s. Deetech Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd., 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
S Muthumalai Rani v The Secretary and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
Arul Daniel v Suganya and other connected matters, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
S Jagathrakshakan v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
V Senthil Balaji v Nirmal Kumar and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
R Prema Latha and others v State and others, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472
Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
M Muthu v Union of India and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
Mr.K Varathan v Mr. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
P Muthusamy and ors v Mrs P Vennila and ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
M Kala and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
Vinoth R v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
Leelavathi and another v. Kamala and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
G Deepa and another v The General Manager and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
Rajamani v The Inspector General of Police (South Zone) and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
KR Raja v State, 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 482
Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
V Annadurai v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
SP Narayanan v District Collector, Thoothukudi, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
Arappor Iyakkam v The Director and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
A Veronica Mary v The State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
REPORTS
Case Title: Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s MAC Public Charitable Trust (batch)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 448
The Madras High Court on Monday deprecated the practice of receiving capitation fee in exchange of admissions. The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held that such practice of receiving capitation fee is against the Tamil Nadu Educational Institutions (Prohibition of Collection of Capitation Fee) Act, 1992.
It is therefore beyond the pale of any doubt that education can never be a commercial activity or a trade or business and those in the field of education will have to constantly and consistently abide by this guiding principle. However, the undeniable reality staring at our face is the collection of capitation fee as a condition precedent for admission into educational institutions.
Case Title: S Mukanchand Bothra (Died) and another v. The Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 449
The Madras High Court came down heavily on public authorities delaying action upon complaints by citizens against government officials. The court was hearing a plea by a man who had given a complaint to the Chief Secretary against an officer in 2016. When the complaint was not acted upon, he approached the court.
The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam observed that failure of public authorities take action upon complaints would result in people's "no confidence" in the public authorities. Further, such inaction/omission was also unconstitutional and authorities had to ensure that such delay does not arise in the future.
Case Title: Senthil Balaji v State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 450
Madras High Court has ordered a fresh enquiry into the cash-for-job scam, a case involving irregularities in the appointment in State Transport Corporation.
Justice V Sivagnanam observed that there were irregularities in the investigation conducted by the investigating agency as the agency had failed to include certain crucial aspects.
The court also dismissed the discharge petitions filed by the Electricity Minister Senthil Balaji, stating that the case impacts the society. The court also noted that there were materials against the Minister and there was no infirmity in framing of charge by the court below.
Case Title: Prasanna Gunasundari v The Deputy Inspector General of Police and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 451
The Madras High Court recently observed that the power to entertain mercy petition of any convicted person under any law to which the executive power of the State extends is only available to the Governor of the State.
Thus, the office of the Director General of Police (DGP) has no statutory power to entertain mercy petitions against orders passed in departmental action. Such an exercise of power by the DGP is thus in violation of the Indian Constitution. The court noted that the exercise of jurisdiction by authorities in excess of their jurisdiction would result in colorable exercise of power.
Case Title: K Kala v Secretary, Education Department and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 452
The Madras High Court criticized the recent trend of parents implicating school authorities and teachers whenever a school student commits suicide. Justice SM Subramaniam noted that teachers and headmasters could be made liable only if there was sufficient evidence regarding their misconduct.
The court also noted that while it is easier to engage in blame-game, it is much difficult to maintain discipline in schools. Further, such general blaming would also negatively affect the students studying in the institution.
The court also highlighted that the duties of parents co-exists with that of the teachers. The court noted that being the natural guardians, the role played by parents was pivotal and had great importance in shaping the lives of children. It said that parents are expected to be the "watchdog" regarding the activities of their own children, both inside the house and outside.
6. Satisfied With CB-CID Investigation, Madras High Court Refuses CBI Probe Into Custodial Death
Case Title: V Vijay and another v. The State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 453
The Madras High Court recently refused to transfer the investigation of the alleged custodial death of Vignesh to the Central Bureau of Investigation. Justice V Sivagnanam observed that the investigation by CB-CID was satisfactory and that there was no need to transfer the case.
Vignesh, who was intercepted by the police was allegedly assaulted by the authorities and later died.
Case Title: R Karthikeyan v. K Phanindra Reddy IAS
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 454
The Madras High Court on Friday permitted the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh to carry out a procession at 44 locations out of the 50 requested for, on November 6.
Justice GK Ilanthiraiyan said the procession could be carried out in 44 locations, after perusing the sealed cover report. For six locations i.e., Nagercoil, Coimbatore city, Pollachi, Tirupur, Palladam, and Arumani, the court did not grant permission procession as it found "some materials".
The court directed the organization to conduct the proceeding in compounded premises such as Ground or Stadium. The participants were directed to go by their respective vehicles without causing any hindrance to the general public and traffic. Even during the programs, the participants were directed not to make adverse remarks against any of the individuals or the organisations banned by the Government.
The participants shall not bring any stick, lathi or weapon that may cause injury to any one.
ALSO READ: Instructions Issued by DGP To Permit RSS March On Nov 6: Tamil Nadu Govt To Madras High Court
Case Title: Life Insurance Corporation of India v. The National Commission for Scheduled Caste and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 455
The Madras High Court recently observed that while the National Commission for Scheduled Castes can exercise the powers of the civil court for the purpose of conducting an adjudication in an effective manner, it cannot direct the authorities to grant promotion to a person or post her at a particular station or place.
"More specifically, National Commission is not empowered to issue any direction to transfer an employee in a particular post or place. Promotion is also a condition of service and all promotions are to be granted strictly in accordance with the Service rules in force," said Justice SM Subramaniam.
Case Title: Lilly Pushpam v The Additional Chief Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 456
The Madras High Court recently set aside a preventive detention order after observing that there was an inordinate and unexplained delay of 14 days in considering the representation made on behalf of the detenu.
The court relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in Rekha v State of Tamil Nadu, Tara Chand v State of Rajasthan and others and the decision of the Madras High Court in Sumaiya v The Secretary to Government where the court has repeatedly held that unexplained delay renders the very detention illegal and is sufficient for setting aside the detention order. In view of the same, the court directed the respondents to release the detenue forthwith.
Case Title: N/s.Sayar Cars Versus The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (CT)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 457
The Madras High Court has held that the assessment made to the best of the authority's judgement would not be sufficient for the imposition of penalty, as the degree of proof required for the imposition of penalty is much higher than that required for the purpose of framing a best judgement assessment.
The single bench of Justice Anita Sumanth has observed that the petitioner has admittedly remitted the difference in tax along with interest even at the time of inspection. The imposition of a penalty under Section 27(3) of the Tamil Nadu VAT Act was automatic and erroneous in law.
Case Title: Vinoth v Sub Divisional Magistrate and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 458
The Madras High Court recently came down heavily on Executive Magistrates passing orders "without knowing or understanding the basic concepts of criminal law". The remarks were made while hearing a challenge to an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Magistrate under Section 122(1) (b) of CrPC.
Justice K Murali Shankar lamented that the Executive Magistrates were passing orders mechanically, without conducting any sort of inquiry.
The court thus noted that the government should conduct Training/Refresher Courses for newly appointed Executive Magistrates to ensure that they conduct enquiry in a proper manner.
Case Title: K Vinopratha v The Teachers Recruitment Board and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 459
The Madras High Court recently said that when the answer key is manifestly and patently erroneous, interference will be warranted.
The court added, that the apex court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta has held that key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization.
13. Show Cause Notice Issued To The Driver Of Consignment Is Not Adequate: Madras High Court
Case Title: Ramki Cements Private Limited Versus The State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 460
The Madras High Court has held that the show-cause notice issued to the driver of the consignment is not adequate.
The single bench of Justice S. Srimathy has quashed the demand for tax and penalty in Form GST MOV-09 and directed the department to issue a fresh notice.
The court opined that the petitioner was not given an adequate opportunity. The petitioner has not received the show cause notice. The show-cause notice issued to the driver was not adequate. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.
Case Title: Kirankumar Moolchand Jain versus TransUnion CIBIL Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 461
The Madras High Court has ruled that the bar contained under Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (CIC Act) will not apply to proceedings for constitution of an arbitral tribunal, to resolve the disputes in the manner prescribed under the CIC Act.
The Single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the object and purpose of Section 31 of the CIC Act is to preclude the parties from seeking redressal of grievances in any manner other than that prescribed under the CIC Act. It added that since Section 18 of the CIC Act provides for dispute resolution through arbitration, the provisions of Section 31 would not bar the constitution of an arbitral tribunal.
Case Title: Sunitha v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 462
Expressing shock over Tamil Nadu government's abuse of preventive detention laws, the Madras High Court has said that it will impose costs on the State whenever a preventive detention order is found to be illegal.
The division bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh gave the ruling in two habeas corpus petitions filed by relatives of the detenues under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.
The court held that callous indifference towards the violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution clearly constituted a "Constitutional Tort". It added that such detention orders, which are passed ignoring the law, only to be set aside, clearly shows the State's refusal to follow the law.
Case Title: S Rajarethinam (Deceased) and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 463
The Madras High Court on Monday initiated suo moto contempt proceedings against the Director General of Police and other police officials for prima facie flouting the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in DK Basu's case, while arresting a lawyer in 2017.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that the report of the Magistrate concerned revealed about the excessiveness of the police and an act of violation allegedly committed by them. It observed that the police officials are expected to understand the scope of fundamental rights enumerated under Articles 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution while initiating action against any individuals. The bench also expressed dismay over the long delay in concluding the disciplinary action that was initiated against the errant officials.
The court was satisfied that the procedures as contemplated under DK Basu were not followed. In light of the such matter, the thought it fit to initiate suo moto contempt proceedings against the officials.
17. DGFT Cannot Amend Foreign Trade Policy; Can't Restrict The Benefit Of SHIS Scheme: Madras High Court
Case Title: M/s. Polyhose India Private Limited versus The Additional Director General of Foreign Trade
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 464
The Madras High Court has ruled that the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), in exercise of its power to clarify the doubts regarding the interpretation of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP), as formulated by the Central Government, cannot amend the very policy itself.
The single bench of Justice N. Sathish Kumar noted that the FTP 2009-2014 provided for grant of Status Holder Incentive Scrip (SHIS), an export incentive, to the entire Plastic sector. The Court held that the DGFT cannot restrict the said incentive to the plastic products falling under a particular Serial Number under the ITC HS Classification, in the absence of any amendment in the FTP.
Case Title: M/s. Deetech Projects Pvt. Ltd. versus M/s. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 465
The Madras High Court has ruled that once a dispute is referred to the Facilitation Council under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act), if the Facilitation Council adjudicates the dispute on merits, such decision would operate as res judicata and would bar the institution of arbitral proceedings in respect of the same dispute.
However, the Court held that if the Facilitation Council declines to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the petition was not maintainable before it, the arbitration clause contained in the agreement between the parties would survive.
The single bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy observed that by way of a legal fiction contained under Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, an arbitration agreement in terms of the A&C Act is statutorily imported once the dispute is taken up for arbitration under the MSMED Act. The Court ruled that the said legal fiction does not have the effect of novating the agreement between the parties by deleting the arbitration clause contained in the said agreement.
Case Title: S Muthumalai Rani v The Secretary and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 466
The Madras High Court recently directed the government to constitute "Flying Squads" at Regional and District levels to conduct frequent surprise inspections in Government Hospitals, Primary Health Centres, etc., across the State to ensure that Doctors and other staffs are properly working in the hospitals and also ensure that the Hospitals are working in a good manner.
The court also directed that the activities of the Flying Squad could be monitored by the Head of Departments or the Government to maintain its efficiency.
Case Title: Arul Daniel v Suganya and other connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 467
A Full Bench of the Madras High Court on Thursday held that proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act can be challenged in the High Court only under Article 227 of the Constitution and not by invoking the court's power under Section 482 CrPC.
The matter was referred to the bench of Justice PN Prakash, Justice RMT Teeka Raman and Justice AD Jagadish Chandira after Justice N Satish Kumar, while considering a batch of petitions seeking to quash the application filed under Section 12 of the DV Act by invoking the provision under Section 482 CrPC, in an order observed that a division bench's recent ruling on the legal question was not in consonance with the Supreme Court decisions.
While disposing of the petition, the larger bench observed that the High Court did not have the powers to quash proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act through Section 482 of CrPC. It observed that this is because, under the Domestic Violence Act, a Magistrate court is the designated court to hear applications. Since Magistrate's court is not a criminal court, a petition under Section 482 is not maintainable. The High Court could thus entertain challenges against proceedings under Domestic Violence Act only under Article 227.
21. Madras High Court Quashes ED's Money Laundering Proceedings Against DMK MP Jagathrakshakan
Case Title: S Jagathrakshakan v The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 468
The Madras High Court recently quashed Enforcement Directorate proceedings against DMK MP S Jagathrakshakan. A bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teeka Raman allowed the petition filed by the Minister after observing that the FIRs in the predicate offense were already quashed by a single judge.
While seeking to quash the proceedings under the Money Laundering Act, the petitioners relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and others v. Union of India and others. In this case, the Supreme Court observed that If the person is finally discharged/acquitted of the scheduled offence or the criminal case against him is quashed by the Court of competent jurisdiction, there can be no offence of money-laundering against him or any one claiming such property being the property linked to stated scheduled offence through him.
In light of the above judgment, the court allowed the petition filed by the Minister and set aside the proceedings under the Money Laundering Act.
Case Title: V Senthil Balaji v Nirmal Kumar and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 469
The Madras High Court has recently restrained the head of Tamil Nadu BJP IT Wing, CTR Nirmal Kumar from making any defamatory remarks, statements or tweets against DMK Minister Senthil Balaji.
The interim orders were passed by a bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan on a plea by Senthil Balaji.
In his plea, Balaji submitted that the defendant, was habitually offending the Minister due to political differences, through tweets and other interviews. He also submitted that the allegations did not have any backing as there was no evidence to support the claims. The defendant was thus making vexatious and slanderous allegations without any basis, Balaji said.
23. Madras High Court Restrains Over 12K Websites From Illegally Broadcasting FIFA World Cup 2022
Case Title: Viacom18 Media Private Limited v Bharath Sanchar Nigam Limited and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 470
The Madras High Court on Friday granted interim injunction to Viacom18 and restrained more than 12,000 websites from showcasing the FIFA World Cup 2022.
While granting the interim injunction, Justice M Sundar said:
With regard to prima facie case, there is no difficulty in accepting prima facie that the plaintiff is the owner of the Copyright in the Sporting Event. In Terms of balance of convenience, if this interim order is not granted now, it would result in alleged piracy being completed in all and every aspect of the matter.
Finding merit in the case of the Plaintiffs, the court restrained the respondent internet service providers "or any other person or entity" from infringing the plaintiff's copyright over the FIFA World Cup sporting event "to prevent copying, transmission, communication, displaying, releasing, showing, hosting, streaming, uploading, downloading, exhibiting, playing and exhibition of the sporting event".
Case Title: M.R.Sivaramakrishnan v State and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 471
While dismissing a petition to quash the final report with respect to a sexual harassment case on the ground that the harassment did not occur in the public place, the Madras High Court held that harassment of a woman would still be an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.
Even for the sake of argument, if it is understood that in order to punish the accused for the offence under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, the occurrence ought to have occurred in a public place, still the harassment of a woman is an offence and the accused can be punished under Section 354 IPC. Because, the Court is not precluded to punish the accused for any other lesser offence, if the offence is cognizable in nature, Justice RN Manjula observed.
Case Title: R Prema Latha and others v State and others
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 472
The Madras High Court recently declared as null and void the appointment of 254 assistant professors in colleges managed by Pachaiyappa Trust after it was found that the appointments were tainted with malpractice.
"The Management of the Pachaiyappa's Trust Board is directed to terminate the services of all the appointed candidates forthwith," said the court in the judgment dated November 17.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that since it was not possible to segregate the tainted and non-tainted appointments, it was preferable to cancel the entire appointment.
Case Title: Dr. K Sri Hari Prashanth and another v The Government of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 473
The Madras High Court has asked the State Government to seek a clarification from the Supreme Court regarding the applicability of the Tamil Nadu government notification earmarking 50% of seats in the Government medical colleges to in-service candidates for the academic year 2022-23.
In the meantime, the court gave liberty to the Centre to continue its process of counselling, provided that no final allocation is given to any candidate infringing the 50% reservation for in-service candidates in view of the Government Order.
Case Title: M Muthu v Union of India and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 474
The Madras High Court recently observed that trained Uniformed Personnels, under no circumstances, can be utilised to perform the menial job in the residences of Higher Authorities.
Justice SM Subramaniam remarked that trained Uniformed Personnel are expected to perform the combatant duty and other law and order duties in the interest of public at large. It added that forcing them to perform menial jobs in the name of orderlies is below their dignity.
The bench has therefore directed the Home Ministry to take strict action against higher officials whenever an incident of practicing orderly system is reported. It also directed that apart from taking departmental action, the salary payable to officials engaged as an orderly must be recovered from the errant higher official.
Case Title: Mr.K Varathan v Mr. Prakash Babu Nakundhi Reddy
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 475
The Madras High Court recently observed that when a suit does not have an "urgent interim relief" it will be hit by Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act which bars any commercial suit wherein pre- institution mediation was not carried out.
Justice M Sundar said that 'interim' relief and 'urgent interim' relief are distinct and one cannot escape pre-litigation mediation unless a case for the latter is proved.
The court thus set out certain tests/parameters (illustrative, not exhaustive) to be looked into to see if a relief was an "urgent interim relief":
Case Title: P Muthusamy and ors v Mrs P Vennila and ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 476
Lamenting the casteism still prevailing in the country, the Madras High Court noted that even after 75 years of Independence, the government still has to provide separate burial grounds on communal lines. Justice R Subramanian and Justice K Kumaresh Babu observed that the government should ensure that at least the burial grounds should be made common to all communities.
But even in the Twenty First Century, we are left grappling with casteism and classification based on caste is made even in matters of burial of the dead. This situation has to change and the change should be for the better. We sincerely hope that the Government of the day would come forward to make a beginning by making at least burial grounds and burning grounds common to all communities.
Case Title: M Kala and another v. The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 477
The Madras High Court recently imposed Rs. 35K cost on a litigant for filing false case against Police personnel. Rs. 5 thousand will be paid to each of the seven police officers impleaded in the proceedings.
Justice SM Subramaniam observed that there is a recent trend of filing petitions against police officers without any substance and such practice should never be tolerated.
Observing that the present petition was filed almost 5 years ago, the court added that keeping such petitions pending for long years would cause mental agony to the field officers and thus, the courts should ensure that such frivolous cases are disposed of soon.
Case Title: Vinoth R v. Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 478
The Madras High Court on Monday directed the District Collectors of Tenkasi, Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Coimbatore and Ooty to form a committee to curtail illegal diversion of the natural flow of waterfalls by the private resorts, who have created artificial waterfalls at their properties.
"We are of the view that the natural waterfalls which emerge after thousands of years of natural wear, tear, erosion and geomorphological changes, cannot be permitted to be cut and diverted by illegal means to the private resorts/estates/properties by the private persons," said the court.
The Madurai bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the collectors to form a committee in their districts for inspection of the private resorts or estates in question.
Case Title: Leelavathi and another v. Kamala and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 479
Justice D Bharatha Chakravarthy of the Madras High Court has apologised to four women litigants before it for the insestivity shown to them by a lawyer, by putting humiliating questions to them during cross-examination.
The four women (plaintiffs) were wife and daughters of one VR Mani (deceased) who abandoned them for want of a son and then married defendant no.1 who gave birth to his son, defendant no. 2.
In a property dispute between the two sides, the lawyer appearing for the defendants "very high-handedly" put questions to Mani's first wife, suggesting that she is of loose character and even questioning the paternity of her two daughters. The Court found that the allegations were not backed by any valid material.
Justice Chakravarthy apologized that such an episode took place under the supervision of the Court and assured the three daughters that they are as good as sons.
Case Title: G Deepa and another v The General Manager and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 480
The Madras High Court recently observed that banks setting up ceiling limits based on the Reserve Bank of India's circular in non-base branches are not violative of the Banking Regulation Act.
Justice N Sathish Kumar further observed that when the account holder himself opened the bank account knowing all the restrictions put up on non-base branches, he could not later complain that the same is violative of his property right.
Thus, finding no merits in the petition, the court dismissed the same. The court also opined that it was open to the RBI and other banks to modify the restrictions and to enhance the ceiling limits.
Case Title: Rajamani v The Inspector General of Police (South Zone) and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 481
Coming to the aid of a detenue, whose rape complaints were not properly considered by the police officials, the Madras High Court expanded the scope of a Habeas Corpus Petition and went on to seek a status report from the Superintendent of Police regarding the allegations.
The detenue was kept at a care home following registering of a rape complaint and not allowed to meet her family. The counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the hardships that the detenue had to go through, being a victim of rape to register her complaints. He submitted that her complaints were not duly looked into by the authorities.
Hearing this submission, the bench of Justice MS Ramesh and Justice Anand Venkatesh sought a status report.
35. Make Tourist Destinations Accessible For Disabled: High Court Directs Tamil Nadu Govt
Case Title: KR Raja v State
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Mad) 482
The Madras High Court has directed the State government to take steps and make all tourist destinations in Tamil Nadu accessible for disabled persons in accordance with the standards of accessibility as formulated under section 40 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
The bench of Justices R Mahadevan and J Sathya Narayana Prasad remarked,
Accessible tourism is integral for equal participation of persons with disabilities in recreational and cultural life, like the other persons. It also applies to the senior citizens and elderly persons to experience and participate fully in their older years.
It therefore directed the State to devise a program in consultation with expert bodies to make tourist destinations accessible for all.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 483
The Madras High Court on Tuesday closed the suo moto proceedings that were initiated following a ragging incident at Christian Medical College, Vellore.
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar took note of the 'preventive actions' taken by the college to ward off any future incidents of ragging.
A police complaint was filed after a video went viral detailing the incidents of mass ragging at CMC Vellore. Based on the complaint, seven students were suspended.
Following news reports of the incident, the Court took suo moto cognisance of the incident.
Case Title: V Annadurai v The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 484
While hearing a plea by a former Senior Driver seeking terminal and pensionary benefits which were not settled in light of a corruption case against him, the Madras High Court expressed deep unhappiness over the pendency of corruption cases in the state.
As per a status report filed by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, nearly 1635 corruption cases are pending across the State of Tamil Nadu and those cases were registered from the year 1983 onwards.
Justice SM Subramaniam noted that with such pendency there was no possibility of controlling corrupt practices among public servants. Further, when criminal proceedings are kept pending for such a long period, the offenders will get encouragement to escape the clutches of law.
Case Title: SP Narayanan v District Collector, Thoothukudi
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 485
Hearing a plea seeking measures against use of temple land as a burial ground, the Madras High Court observed that while the right to be cremated or buried is an essential part of fundamental right to practise one's religion, the same cannot be allowed on the land belonging to temples.
"At the same time, it cannot be allowed to bury dead bodies in the land belonging to the temple. This court has time and again retierated that the lands belonging to the temples are used only for religious purposes and the activities connected therein"
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice J Sathya Narayana Prasad said that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment (HR&CE) department, being the custodian of temples, should take all possible steps to remove encroachments and unauthorised occupation.
Case Title: Arappor Iyakkam v The Director and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 486
The Madras High Court on Wednesday quashed one of the two FIRs filed by the Directorate of Vigilance and Corruption (DVAC) against former Minister SP Velumani. The court quashed the DVAC proceeding were the former minister was alleged to have awarded tenders irregularly while he was in office as the Minister of Municipal Administration.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teekaa Raman further held that prosecution in another case involving disproportionate assets would continue. It is alleged that the minister along with 11 others amassed wealth to the tune of over ₹58.23 crore that was disproportionate to their known sources of income during 2016-21. As per the FIR, it is also alleged that the Minister had channelized his ill-gotten wealth into other firms/companies owned by his relatives or associates.
Case Title: A Veronica Mary v The State of Tamil Nadu and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 487
Observing that sexual harassment in educational institutions continues to remain inadequately addressed, the Madras High Court recently issued directions to the State government for proper implementation of the law and policies framed against sexual abuse of children.
The division bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad directed the school education department to coordinate with the State Commission for Protection Of Child Rights to ensure that an Internal Complaints Committee is constituted in the schools as required under under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
The court also said the schools may frame anti-sexual harassment policy and distribute it among students and teachers. Importantly, the court said it needs to be ensured that every schools has reporting and redressal mechanism in place.
OTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Additional Advocate General J Ravindran on Monday told the Madras High Court that the man who set himself ablaze in the court premises over non issuance of community certificate to his son actually belonged to the Scheduled Caste (Hindu Kuravan) community and not the Scheduled Tribe community (as he had claimed in his application).
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice Krishnakumar had previously directed the District Revenue Officer to conduct a field enquiry and ascertain the facts related to the caste of the deceased Velmurugan. It was initially alleged that the authorities had failed to provide Velmurugan a community certificate for his son even after he made repeated rounds of the office, following which he attempted suicide.
2. Madras High Court Premises To Be Made Plastic Free From November 10
The Madras High Court premises will soon become a plastic free zone. Additional Advocate General J Ravindran informed the bench of Justice N Sathish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy that five "manjappai" (yellow cotton bag) vending machines would be installed in the campus. Apart from the Madras campus, the Madurai campus will also be made plastic free.
Ravindran informed the court that the Acting Chief Justice T Raja was set to inaugurate these vending machines on November 10 along with a plastic bottle crushing unit.
While hearing petitions seeking to move education from the concurrent list to the state list, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu submitted that Education was one such area where no one policy fits all.
Sibal was making submissions before a bench of Justice R Mahadevan, Justice M Sundar, and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy in favor of moving education to the State list. According to Sibal, each state had its own differences and it was not possible to give uniform criteria for all states.
Sibal further submitted that while the Parliament could impose certain standards, what must be the curriculum taught in schools to meet these standards should essentially be decided by the States. He emphasized that a child must be taught in his mother tongue. But when the Parliament invades into the power of the State, it can also possibly impose a uniform language which would be against the interest of the children
Case Title: Isha Foundation v. Union of India
Case No: WP No. 467 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Wednesday observed that Jaggi Vasudev's Isha Foundation would come within the purview of "Educational Institutions" as per the clarification issued by the Central Government in 2014 with regard to the entities that are exempted from getting mandatory environmental clearance before commencing construction work.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar observed that the Office Memorandum also included those institutions which was essential to mental, moral and physical development. Since there was no dispute that the centre was imparting yoga, it promoted mental development and thus would come within the purview of educational institutions.
Case Title: Mahendra Singh Dhoni v. G Sampath Kumar
Case No: Contempt Petition 2361 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Friday ordered IPS officer G Sampath Kumar to appear in court on December 9 in a contempt petition filed by cricketer MS Dhoni.
The bench of Justice PN Prakash and Justice RMT Teekaa Raman ordered statutory notice when the matter was taken up today.
Dhoni had approached the court seeking initiation of criminal contempt proceedings against the IPS officer for allegedly making contemptuous remarks against the Supreme Court and Madras High Court in connection with the 2013 IPL scandal.
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State of Tamil Nadu and other connected cases
Case No: WP No. 29911 of 2022
The All India Gaming Federation and other online gaming companies on Wednesday withdrew all petitions challenging Tamil Nadu government's ordinance for Prohibition of Online Gambling and Regulation of Online Games, after State informed that it is yet to be notified.
The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar also gave liberty to the petitioners to file fresh petitions once the ordinance comes into effect.
When the matter came up for hearing today, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the state of Tamil Nadu objected to the petitions and contended that the petitioners were seeking a premature prayer. He informed the court that the ordinance has not yet come into effect and that the petitioners did not have necessary cause of action to challenge the ordinance.
Observing that the court could not interfere at such a time when the ordinance itself had not come into effect, the court gave liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the suit with liberty to file fresh petitions.
ALSO READ: All India Gaming Federation Moves Madras High Court Against TN Govt Ordinance On Online Gaming
7. Madras High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Death of Former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa
Case Title: RR Gopaljee v Union of India
Case No: WP No. 119133 of 2022 (Filing No)
The Madras High Court has dismissed a plea seeking CBI enquiry into the death of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalitha. The bench of Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar dismissed the petition observing that it was not maintainable.
While dismissing the petition, the court asked Petitioner R R Gopaljee to exhaust his remedies before the CBI and other concerned authorities by way of representations before approaching the High Court.
Case Title: Paul Ramshankar v Inspector Of Police and Somasundar v Inspector of Police
Case No: CRL OP 28484 of 2022 and CRL OP 28487 of 2022
The Madras High Court on Friday refused to pass orders on the anticipatory bail petitions filed by two doctors allegedly connected with the death of footballer Priya. At the same time, the court orally directed the State to ensure the safety of the two doctors and further that their families should not be harassed.
"We're living in a country where a Doctor, a Covid Warrior, was not given a decent burial. We must ensure the safety of the doctors as they have been getting threatening calls", Justice AD Jagadish Chandra observed.
The court adjourned the matter to two weeks. In the meantime, the doctors were given liberty to surrender before the police if they wished to do so.
After Gujarat and Telangana, the Madras High Court Advocates Association has come forward opposing the proposal to transfer a sitting judge.
The Association has taken objection to the transfer of Acting Chief Justice T Raja to Rajasthan High Court.
The Association wrote a letter to Chief Justice DY Chandrachud opposing the transfer. In its letter, the association President G Mohanakrishnan wrote that the transfer "does not bode well for the judiciary and is seen as a disincentive for efficiency and judicial decency."
The letter further states that, Justice Raja's transfer which has come at a time when he has only six months to retire is a bad news for the judiciary.
Case Title: Kunnur Seenivasan v Union of India and others
Case No: WP(MD) 26168 of 2022
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has sought the response of the Centre on a plea challenging the fixation of 2.5 lakh as the base income for the purpose of collecting Income Tax in light of the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the validity of 103rd Constitutional Amendment providing reservation to Economically Weaker Sections of the society with gross annual income below Rs. 7,99,999.
The bench of Justice R Mahadevan and Justice Sathya Narayana Prasad on Monday ordered notice to the Union Ministries of Law & Justice, Finance Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension and adjourned the matter by 4 weeks.
The Madras High Court has fixed the terms and conditions for the suspension of sentence of Youtuber/Activist Savukku Shankar.
On 15th September 2022, Shankar was sentenced to six months simple imprisonment in a suo moto contempt proceeding for his remarks against the higher judiciary.
Upon the orders of the court, the Registrar directed Shankar to execute a bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties and to appear before the Judicial Magistrate daily at 10:30 am.
During the period of suspension of sentence, Shankar is directed not to make any comments or any other related activities on the Social Media, as directed by the Apex Court. The court also directed Shankar not to indulge in any other activities offending the judiciary.
12. Madras High Court Recalls Order Quashing Sexual Harassment Case Against Godman Shiva Sankar Baba
Case Title: Shiva Sankar Baba v State
Case No: Crl OP 23806 of 2021
The Madras High Court on Monday recalled its earlier order quashing a sexual harassment case against self-styled godman Shiva Sankar baba.
On October 17, Justice RN Manjula had allowed a quashing petition filed by Baba after observing that no application to condone the delay was filed along with the complaint under Section 473 of CrPC.
On Monday, the bench recalled the order after the State informed the court that a charge sheet had already been filed when the High Court quashed the FIR. The court also remarked that had it known that the charge sheet was already filed, it would not have quashed the FIR.
Case Title: P Elangovan and others v. R Prema Latha and others
Case No: WA 2558 of 2022
A division bench of the Madras High Court on Tuesday kept in abeyance a single judge's recent order terminating appointment of 254 Assistant Professors in the colleges maintained by the Pachaiyappa Trust.
The bench of Justice Paresh Upadhyay and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy observed that the order of the single judge was unsustainable and to be kept in abeyance till the final hearing of the appeal.
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has moved the Madras High court challenging an earlier order of the court had imposed certain conditions on the party for conducting its route march. The court directed the organization to conduct the proceeding in compounded premises such as Ground or Stadium. The court had also directed the participants not to bring any stick, lathi or weapon that may cause injury to any one.
The appellants submitted that the single judge was not justified in law to defeat the route march which was a constitutional right of the party. The organization contended that the single judge had modified the order in the writ petition to such an extent that the very definition of "route march" was defeated. The judge had failed to consider that the very definition of the word was not attracted if it is done indoors.
The Madras High Court on Thursday sought responses from the Kerala and Karnataka government on its delay to nominate nodal officers to be part of a Special Investigating Team to probe into wildlife offenses.
Earlier this year, the court had directed constitution of Special Investigation Team (SIT) comprising of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), state police and Forest Department officials to probe into cases relating to elephant poaching and other forest crime reported in the western ghats area. It had noted that poachers were committing crimes in Tamil Nadu and escaping to neighboring states of Karnataka and Kerala.
The bench of Justice N Satish Kumar and Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy directed both the states to submit their responses by December 22.
Case Title: M Vignesh v. The Chief Secretary and others
Case No: WP No. 31735 of 2022
Acting Chief Justice T Raja and Justice D Krishnakumar on Monday sought the State's response on a lawyer's plea seeking to frame rules and regulations against bike riders who drive their bikes in a rash and dangerous manner in public places and to prevent usage of modified/altered bikes without proper permission from the Regional Transport Officer (RTO) in the state of Tamil Nadu.
The petitioner, M Vignesh, a lawyer by profession, submitted in his affidavit that the State of Tamil Nadu had seen a humongous increase in the number of rash and negligent driving cases in the past five years. According to the petitioner, one reason for the same is the racing and rash driving culture that has increased in the State where bike riders were doing dangerous stunts on public roads.
Case Title: S Karthik Gopinath v The Executive Officer and others
Case No: WP No. 29836 of 2022
While hearing Youtuber Karthik Gopinath's plea seeking recognition as a donor to transfer around 30 lakhs rupees that he had collected through "Milaap" for renovating damaged temples, the Madras High Court observed that online crowdfunding may not be a healthy way of collecting donations.
This is not a healthy way of collecting funds. The online system may be helpful in some ways, but it also poses many risks. Here, the petitioner has come forward, but what about others who have collected many and have failed to declare it? Justice PD Audikesavalu asked.
The Kancheepuram District President of the Thanthai Periyar Dravidar Kazhagam has approached the Madras High Court challenging the authority by which Governor RN Ravi is continuing to hold office as he has been appointed as the Chairman of the Auroville foundation.
The petitioner, M Kannadasan submitted that as per Section 13 of the Auroville Foundation Act, the Chairman was entitled to salaries and allowances along with other benefits like leave, pension, provident fund etc as fixed by the Central Government. Drawing attention to Article 158(2) of the Constitution of India which prohibits the Governor from holding any other office of profit, Kannadasan submitted that the moment Ravi accepted the position of Chairman, he was disqualified to continue in the office of the Governor.
